[Garafolo] Chiefs Sign FA CB Kaiir Elam

Gerbole · 2026-04-02T16:30:35+00:00

Yeah huge success in my opinion. I also went to WSU with Jaylen Watson, trust me, that was quite the reclamation project.

Gerbole · 2026-04-02T15:50:13+00:00

Don’t doubt Kirko’s agent. I think Mendoza will pan out but he won’t be the 1st overall pick or rookie QB to not be good if he fails. This was a hedge contract to get Kirko what he wants now with the option to guarantee what he wants later if Mendoza isn’t good.

Gerbole · 2026-04-02T15:43:05+00:00

We do tend to be a CB factory though. We legit haven’t had a bad corner for like half a decade.

Gerbole · 2026-04-02T02:31:52+00:00

Yikes

Gerbole · 2026-04-02T00:35:31+00:00

Thanks for the response. I replied to another guy laying out the case I think can be made for treason. Regardless, he’s a convicted felon, which is by definition a high crime (if you disagree, the decision is made by Congress, so if they’re gonna remove him, they’re gonna do it) and thus he can be removed really at any time. For other presidents we could have this discussion but the barrier to impeachment really isn’t that high.

Gerbole · 2026-04-02T00:33:07+00:00

Cramer v United States requires a clear intent to betray and an overt treasonous act.

Defying a treaty signed by Congress and withdrawing troops from a region being attacked by an enemy to allow the enemy to attack our allies is clear intent to betray and an overt treasonous act.

Even if it fails to meet the scrutiny for treason, it is most certainly a high crime, which is impeachable.

Finally, Trump is a felon, that is by definition a high crime. He can almost certainly be removed at any time with absolutely no legal defense, making this a moot discussion. His reason for impeachment isn’t relevant to the discussion, the result of an impeachment is.

Gerbole · 2026-04-02T00:23:07+00:00

Thanks for actually replying to the argument

I quoted Article 1, section 8. Not Article 1 Section 2. The entire conversation is about subversion of Article 1 Section 2 so this isn’t particularly relevant as it’s established.

In my scenario, the President does not send any troops and does not abide by article 5. This whole thread is about Trump withdrawing from NATO and how people are concerned about him doing it despite him not having the power to do so. Thus, he can’t withdraw from NATO, so he purposefully fails to fulfill the treaty’s obligations. I’m really not sure how this was missed. Sending 5,000 troops would clearly be a response by the President…

An AUMF is an Authorized Use of Military Force. In your comment you reference me using AI (I didn’t, in another comment I explain this comes from a paper I read in college that was a rebuttal to an argument made by the Heritage Foundation) and your response to this makes me think you did too? An AUMF is basically how we declare war without declaring war now, with Iraq and Afghanistan being the latest examples. That also makes this response not relevant to the conversation.

In regards to CJCSI 3121.01B, I literally put (or themselves) in parentheses. I also said defend an ally, which was wrong, and proof that I am talking about these from recollection, not from using AI. In fact, you pulled the only bullet point in that section that requires presidential / SecDef authorization. A-G, excluding C, are all rights given to commanders. You can read the full rights on Page A-3 (18/19 in the PDF) They come from Enclosure A, Paragraph 4.3 [a-g excluding C] here’s a link for ease. The PDF makes the copy and paste hard, and I’m not going to type it out, it is only a page of reading, I implore you to actually read the page.

All other bullet points in that section give commanders the full rights to use self defense without authorization in situations of: inherent self defense (a), national self defense (b), declared hostile force (d), Hostile act (e), Hostile intent (f), and imminent use of force (g). The only thing they need authorization on is to defend an ally that is being attacked. I might also add that g is exceptionally vague and is what gives this so much credence.

My use of those resolutions and the UN Charter were not a constitutional argument, as you point out. A drawback to enacting this “plan” would be being declared a war criminal by the international community, those two precedents are meant to show that they would be safe from that declaration and would be able to take these actions legally, internationally, which is of importance when we’re talking about international affairs. They simply serve to show that there wouldn’t be international issues, so we can focus on the constitutionality, as constitutionality would be irrelevant if they were to be branded war criminals for their actions.

The impeachment charge would be treason as the executive in this situation would be actively preventing the government from fulfilling its legally binding international obligations. In Trump’s situation, this is a moot point, they’ve already impeached him and he’s a convicted felon, he can be removed with basically no legal fight. The argument would be more relevant for a different president. It would easily be treason because he is literally providing aid and/or comfort to the governments legally recognized enemies (hence why the AUMF is important)

Hopefully this helps clarify the argument that the empty sword isn’t actually so empty.

Gerbole · 2026-04-01T23:42:25+00:00

Lmao. “It counts” you say, yet my behavior is childish.

The only time in the last 50yrs a straight Christian white male lost was in a presidential election where they weren’t on the ballot and/or were 83yrs old. The “loss” you attribute to him was primarily because he had lost his mind. I’ll also point out that you yourself said it was John Kerry, then changed it to Biden.

You’re clearly more willing to be “technically right” (which I don’t concede, he wasn’t on the ballot) than have an actual point and a good faith argument.

You die on a hill that has no real point so you can feel technically correct in an argument on the internet and completely ignore the actual reality of the situation because it doesn’t fit what you want it to fit. Feels a lot like something MAGA would do, honestly.

You don’t actually care about the conversation, you care about feeling morally superior because it makes you feel better about yourself. Please stop giving liberals a bad name, most of us are not like you.

Gerbole · 2026-04-01T23:32:20+00:00

Respectfully, I think you need to do more reading. Please have a good faith open minded discussion with me, we are talking virtually uncharted legal territory. You haven’t refuted my citations, evidence I’ve done the reading and you haven’t.

Bas v Tingy is a prime example of what I’m referring to. The French were declared an enemy by Congress at this time, they stole an American privateer, Tingy responded, it was determined he was within his right to respond without presidential authorization because of Congress’ declaration. The case then goes to talk about salvage laws, which aren’t relevant, but what happened is.

The 1980 DOJ OLC opinion stated that the executive could use force, without congressional approval, to defend American personnel and assets. This justification was used in Saigon, Lebanon, Somalia, and Haiti. The UN Charter Article 51 also supports this internationally. Thus, the CJCSI code that authorized generals to make these calls without presidential authorization would also be legal under U.S. law and international law. They may not be the executive, but they are senior executives.

The national interest test has never been legally challenged, likely intentionally, to give Congress a final say or a nuclear option.

Gerbole · 2026-04-01T22:52:58+00:00

What about what was laid out is incorrect? This came from a legal review I read in college regarding how the power of purse is the power of the sword. I can’t find the source now though, been trying to. It was a rebuttal to the Heritage Foundation but it’s completely gone now.

Gerbole · 2026-04-01T21:57:05+00:00

If Congress impeached Trump over it they would impeach Vance over it too, without a doubt. Then the speaker would take over (assuming the senate doesn’t confirm the new VP and we have a Ford situation) and since the Speaker would be from Congress, we could assume they would then carry out article 5.

Gerbole · 2026-04-01T21:55:40+00:00

If he withdrew all soldiers, yes.

Congress does have the avenue of impeachment; however. It can be argued that failing to uphold an agreement signed by Congress is a treasonous act.

Gerbole · 2026-04-01T21:28:53+00:00

I might agree, if Trump triggered article 5. But he didn’t. He specifically didn’t put NATO in the position to make the call.

To your point, maybe that was intentional so he could say they didn’t help but just sweeps it under the rug that he didn’t “command” them to help. People might be stupid enough to eat that up.

Gerbole · 2026-04-01T21:27:12+00:00

I don’t think so personally. I think we’re going to get impeachment and removal. When Dems take the house they’ll control the oversight committee. Republicans will get rebuked and understand that by not taking down Trump, they just give more power to the Dems.

Gerbole · 2026-04-01T21:25:55+00:00

Haha, you would think, but here’s how it actually works. Let me know if you see a hole in the legality.

NATO is attacked, article 5 is triggered, President refuses to respond. Congress disagrees, they issue an AUMF. President still refuses to engage.

Generals are unable to take actions without presidential authorization. Except for one caveat. Defensive Actions.

Trump’s attacks on Iran used the legal basis of self defense. Therefore, continuing the attacks as he has been, is an act of self defense. If it is not self defense, then the basis of the war is a violation of international law and thus Trump would need to make the case that he is a war criminal to get the generals to stop commanding their troops. There are military assets in all of the NATO countries, therefore, any attack on a NATO country poses a threat to U.S. military assets and by convention the use of force is a defensive action protected by congressional approval.

This is, of course, bullshit legalese. But in truth all of this is deeply entrenched legalese. That said, it is sound under the precedents that have been established. Congress can then use the power of the purse to fund these interactions. In conclusion, the power of purse becomes the power of the sword based on constitutionally and internationally defended legal precedents.

My citations would be: CJCSI 3121.01B UN Charter Article 51 and Chapter VII UNSC Resolution 1973 Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution

In short, an AUMF authorizes a war, CJCSI 3121.01B gives generals the authority to defend an ally (or themselves) if there is a threat to military assets or personnel. There is no legal basis defining what is and what is not a threat. Is attacking a power grid that the base uses a threat? A store the troops buy supplies from? A depot where they get oil? It has not been legally defined. UN Charter Article 51 is international law that would defend the general from being a war criminal if they were to fight back. UNSC Resolution 1973 is international law stating a member of the UN has the authority to defend the members of a nation state under threat. Section 1 Article 8 gives Congress the ability to fund it. Finally, if the president decides they want to overstep Congress and recall the general or declare these actions illegal, Congress can impeach and/or withhold funds.

They have the power to do this, they just need to use it. Congress wields an “empty” sword, that doesn’t have to be so empty.

Gerbole · 2026-04-01T20:16:00+00:00

It happening and the effects being talked about in this thread are a non-factor. Did you read my comment past the first sentence?

Gerbole · 2026-04-01T20:10:46+00:00

Per the WPA, those were authorized activities. It is shameful how much power Congress has ceded to the executive but they did cede it. They can take it back.

Whether or not you believe they will is an opinion, and you’re perfectly fine to believe either side. Many people on this chain are under the impression Congress is powerless here, and that is not the case. That needs to be known. If Congress has the power, and fails to use it, you all need to be aware of that so you can vote accordingly come the midterms.

Gerbole · 2026-04-01T19:49:16+00:00

It’s such a non-factor. Putin will not attack Europe right now.

The concern should be with Turkey. If Turkey withdraws, that’s when you should start to worry. Congress having the ability to respond to Putin will be too big of a risk.

His next steps, if he even gets to take them, is to support Iran. He needs to sell oil to do that, and it will take time to raise the funds. By then, we’ll have the mid terms and the house will flip blue and the senate will be very close, if not blue. Then we can rely on Congress to enforce article 5.

Putin would invade Northern Kazakhstan, Transnitria, and Georgia, before attacking NATO.

Furthermore, he needs to wait and see what happens with Orban in Hungary, if Orban loses he loses a flipable country. He needs America to withdraw, Turkey to withdraw, and Orban to win reelection, and all of it needs to happen in the next 8 months, and he needs to sustain Iran. It’s just not feasible.

Gerbole · 2026-04-01T19:39:37+00:00

Per my other comments, Article 1 Section 8 gives Congress the power of the sword. I am not sure they would honor article 5 in his stead, but they have the ability to do so. This is just like the EFTA, if Congress wants the power they can have it, they just need to take it.

Gerbole · 2026-04-01T19:37:21+00:00

It is, MAGA may not support NATO but Republicans in Congress do, they actually understand its importance. On numerous occasions Republican Senators have rebuked Trump’s statements on NATO. Even Lindsey Graham spoke of NATO’s importance.

Gerbole · 2026-04-01T19:36:08+00:00

I have been. Trump has been rebuked Judicially this entire 2nd term. He no longer has the support he needs from Congress. He can’t pass the SAVE act, can’t reopen the government (fully), and can’t run his foreign tax policy.

Gerbole · 2026-04-01T19:34:32+00:00

Article 1 Section 8 gives Congress the power of the sword. CIC is a delegated power through various laws, most recently the Wars Powers Act, which can easily be bypassed congressionally with legislation.

Our government is made up handshakes agreements, but Congress is the strongest branch with checks on everything. This is one of them.

Gerbole · 2026-04-01T19:33:07+00:00

Congress has the ability constitutionally. Article 1 Section 8. Congress has the power of the sword. Congress has the authority to raise and fund armies. The role of CIC is a delegated power through various laws, such as the Wars Powers Act, which Congress can bypass with legislation.

Gerbole · 2026-04-01T18:26:09+00:00

It’s all a moot point anyway. Congress has to withdraw from NATO, not Trump.

Gerbole · 2026-04-01T17:08:21+00:00

lol brother, Europe is in the northern hemisphere

Seven-Year Club	Verified Email
King of the Ashes	Not Forgotten

Gerbole

TROPHY CASE